Posted: 09.12.2019, 06:46
I will collaborate with Debian Astro team when 1.7 version is released.
Real-time 3D visualization of space
so my immediate suspicion is that somehow installation (or a failed installation) of the new LUA code has somehow broken the OLD "circa Celestia 1.6.1" LUA code (Lua 5.1 IIRC) ... although this possibility seems a little outrageous ...onetwothree wrote:* Add support for Lua 5.2 and 5.3, drop Lua 5.0
Chuft-Captain wrote:After accepting the license agreement, there should be an opportunity to provide an alternative install location ...
Chuft-Captain wrote:followed by what looked like a catch-all exception
A new pre-release of 1.6.2-beta2
A pre-release of the next beta version is available. Grab windows installer from here.
Is "Inno Setup tool" a different tool to the setup tool historically used by Chris L, or is this just the 2015 version of the same tool? If so, it's seriously flawed.onetwothree wrote:It present but only if you don't have Celestia installed already. That's a bug (or feature?) of Inno Setup tool. If you want us to use another tool we are waiting for your pull request.
Unfortunately I didn't take a screenshot at the time. All I can recall is that the error code was mostly 0's and had at least a single 3 digit in it.onetwothree wrote:It would be great if you provide it. But I believe it's caused by absence of Universal C Runtime.
Chuft-Captain wrote:Is "Inno Setup tool" a different tool to the setup tool historically used by Chris L, or is this just the 2015 version of the same tool? If so, it's seriously flawed.
Janus wrote:Lua getn works consistently across tables and arrays both, where # only works on arrays.
Janus wrote:If you are using a celestia version with DLLs, replace the lua 5.3 dll with 5.1, and that should fix the script problems.
We can wait.selden wrote:I'm having some problems generating a test Addon and have some other commitments which probably will prevent me from uploading it tonight.
My suggestion is to perhaps revert to an earlier *stable* version. It's just an installer after all, doing a very simple task, so unless there's a very strong justification for using the "latest and greatest" version, then the oldest version which "gets the the job done" is probably the best choice.onetwothree wrote:I used the latest available version from the Inno Setup tool site.
Oh, indeed!onetwothree wrote:Oh, the bug was unnoticed for almost 2 years here and for 5.5 years in fedora community. But it's fixed now.
FWIW, when this issue first occurred, I did 3 things: 1. uninstalled the failed install, 2. rebooted, and 3. installed a clean version of 1.6.1 into a new location on a separate drive.Janus wrote:If you are using a celestia version with DLLs, replace the lua 5.3 dll with 5.1, and that should fix the script problems.
Chuft-Captain wrote:My suggestion is to perhaps revert to an earlier *stable* version. It's just an installer after all, doing a very simple task, so unless there's a very strong justification for using the "latest and greatest" version, then the oldest version which "gets the the job done" is probably the best choice.
Chuft-Captain wrote:Have you considered incorporating some form of regression testing into your workflow? This almost certainly would have discovered the issue the moment it happened.
Chuft-Captain wrote:Regarding the lua5.1 vs 5.3 discussion... I'm not sure what the Lua dev's "good reasons" for removing getn() are as I don't follow the discussions at lua.org, however it seems to me to be a good and useful feature of Lua 5.1.
In the first instance, whoever made the change would need to check that it works first ... followed by everyone else. This doesn't seem like a big issue, as the previous version will probably work fine.onetwothree wrote:Who will test it?
I'm not trying to blame anyone for the bug not being noticed for years ... all I'm saying is that if we had a set of easily replicated baseline regression tests, in addition to the unit-testing you already (presumedly) do, it would help to catch this sort of unexpected side-effect in the future, whenever there are ANY changes to the code.onetwothree wrote:Tests are code. Somebody should write them. Currently we are only 2 persons with very limited time.
I understand your position, however one of the great things about Celestia and one of the reasons for it's longevity and popularity is that Chris always respected the value of historical addons to the overall Celestia eco-system, and was generally quite careful not to make radical changes in the code if it meant breaking a lot of historical addons, in fact, sometimes he would sacrifice the "ideal" approach in order not to impose syntax changes in catalog files for example if that was going to break a lot of addons.onetwothree wrote:Actually it's addon author's job to check Lua documentation and use only future-clean functions. I see no any good reason to use things that are clearly stated to be removed in future.